Minister & Department on university fee increases for 2017; Recognition of Prior Learning implementation: SAQA briefing

Meeting report

University fee increase briefing
Dr Diane Parker, Deputy Director General: University Education, Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), said that university councils had requested a fee adjustment of 8% on the 2015 baseline, but had had no authority to implement this, and so had called on support from the government, including a maximum cap based on the consumer price index (CPI). The problem was there were different fees across the system. Average tuition fees at universities ranged from about R18 000 per annum (UNISA) to R55 000 per year (UCT).  The average full cost of study ranged from about R18 000 at UNISA, where no accommodation costs were involved, to just under R120 000 per annum at UCT.  Another major challenge was the sustainable implementation of the system, versus social justice. The sustainability of the system entailed staff remuneration, particularly academic staff such as lecturers, who could not be compromised.

Dr Parker explained the background. On 6 October last year, President Zuma had met with university vice chancellors, chairpersons of university councils, the Minister of Higher Education and Training, as well as other members of cabinet, to discuss the challenges in funding universities, student fees, and other issues that were likely to lead to disruptions in the university system later in the year. Since 15 October, the issue of fee increases had come under the spotlight, when Wits University had announced a double-digit fee increase for 2016. Protests had erupted at Wits, and the #Fees Must Fall movement had emerged.

Following the protests, the Minister had attempted to broker a solution with the universities, which had been represented by the executive committees of Universities South Africa (USAf) and the University Council Chairs Forum (UCCF), the students, who had been represented by the South African Union of Students (SAUS), and the staff unions. A cap of 6% had been agreed upon as a reasonable compromise, and stakeholders had been requested to go back and negotiate at the institutional level to find a solution. Students had rejected this proposal, with protests escalating across the system, and they had demanded a 0% increment across all universities. The President had called a meeting of students, universities and relevant ministers to discuss the crisis on 22 October 2015. After the meeting, the President had announced an agreement on no fee increases for 2016, stating that the government would lead a process that would look at broader issues affecting the funding of higher education.

The Presidential task team report of 31 November 2015 had quantified the immediate shortfall in the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), which showed the student debt owed by NSFAS-qualifying students who could not be supported through available funding, as well as the financial implication of the 0% agreement. In a parallel process, on 22 January 2016, the President had set up the Heher Commission to investigate the feasibility of fee-free higher education and training. The Commission is due to report in June 2017. This process was an independent judicial inquiry into the question of the overall funding of higher education and training, covering university education and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions. It would not deal with short-term funding issues. Once it has made recommendations to the President in June 2017, processes would unfold which would be linked to longer-term solutions.

However, following the no-fee agreement in 2015 the demand has been for free higher education for all. The government’s current position was to support the poor. Other demands had also been made on the system, such as the in-sourcing of services; cancellation of student debt; writing off the costs of destruction of property (R500 million damage between October 2015 and July 2016); and security costs to protect lives and property. The financial sustainability of the system was at risk, because the current policy position provided for cost sharing. Universities were responsible for setting fees, and differentiated fees existed across the system.

Dr Parker said that the Council of Higher Education (CHE) had set up a task team, including members from the CHE, the DHET and experts in higher education, and had also elicited inputs from key stakeholders. The task team had based its short-term advice on the assumption that by September 2016, the current cost-sharing model would still exist, and university fees would be implemented, considering the need to ensure that universities could continue to operate and offer higher education. An economic study of the effects and implications of different levels of fee adjustments had therefore been the basis of this advice. Economic modelling had considered the impact of different levels of fee increases on individual universities, and universities’ income and expenditure in 2014, as well as operating surpluses or deficits, had been analysed. It was concluded that any fee increases, or even a 0% fee increase, were likely to be met with resistance. Yet higher education funding -- including NSFAS -- by the state in 2017/18 over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) would remain at the 2014 level of 0.75% of gross domestic product (GDP), and 2.49% of the state budget, which was low by international comparison.

She said that three scenarios had been considered: 0%; the consumer price index (CPI); and the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI – CPI + 2%) linked fee adjustments.

• If a 0% fee increase is implemented in 2017, 19 of the 26 institutions would be in a worse financial position, and the sustainability of these institutions and the system would be at considerable risk. However, student fees would decrease considerably from the 2015 baseline in real terms.
• If a CPI fee adjustment is implemented, ten universities would be in a worse financial position. However, it was likely that they would recover from 2016/17 deficits. While there would be a nominal increase in students’ 2015 university fees, there would be a slight decrease in real terms.
• If a HEPI fee adjustment is implemented, eight universities would be in a worse financial position, but all universities would recover from the 2016/17 deficits. There would be no real increase in student fees, but the NSFAS shortfall would increase.

Thus far, the best solution from the institutions’ point of view would be the third alternative --a fee increase of the CPI+2% (HEPI). The CHE task team had not considered a HEPI adjustment justifiable, since the largest proportion of university expenses comprised the wage bill. In a deteriorating economic climate, it was undesirable that in 2017, wages should increase by more than the CPI. Non-personnel expenditure spent on imports was subject to exchange rate fluctuations, and it was unlikely to be as severe as in previous years.

It was important to balance social justice imperatives with the sustainability of the higher education system and its overall financial stability, so a 0% adjustment was not defensible, since it would result in a non-sustainable system, a decrease in quality and likely retrenchments of staff.

An across the board fee adjustment at the level of the CPI was the most defensible solution, as this resulted in no real cost increase to students, and institutions were likely to recover the 2016/17 deficits.

Dr Parker concluded that the Council of Higher Education had advised that the authority for determining fee increases rested with university councils. Through Universities South Africa, all universities should be requested to commit to a system-wide agreement on fee adjustments. The CHE had also advised a position on the adjustment agreed to between universities and the DHET, and should be fully supported by government. The CHE had advised a CPI fee adjustment, the most defensible position in the interests of social justice and sustainability of higher education. An alternative could be to agree to CPI as a maximum cap for any fee adjustments. All universities must undertake to carry out comprehensive communication and/or consultative processes with stakeholders, especially students. Current efforts were under way to develop an improved, more affordable and better-funded financial aid system for disadvantaged students, and these should be supported and expedited.

Dr Blade Nzimande, Minister of Higher Education and Training, said that R2 billion allocated for the alleviation of historically underprivileged universities, intended for five-year expenditure, had been consumed on the 0% increase for 2016 university fees on the 2015 baseline. The CHE had indicated that if 0% fee increases continued, about 19 universities would become dysfunctional in 2018, and if increases were to be based on CPI, about ten universities will be rendered dysfunctional. The Minister concluded that a second consecutive fee increase could be devastating.

Discussion
Mr M Mbatha (EFF) commented that the grievances of the students had to be considered while the state was working to create a sustainable future. The current system had pretended that the poor were integrated. The lack of financial resources had caused the students to realise that the system was not meant for them. Therefore, a final solution was necessary that would ensure success for the poor, as well as progression for all. 

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) warned that a crisis was inevitable should 90% of universities be doomed without fee increases. Was National Treasury aware of the extent of the problem? What was the baseline amount of 2015, and what would constitute a suitable nominal increase?

Mr Y Cassim (DA) said that after the meeting on 22 October last year, the President had announced the agreement of a no-fee increase for 2016, and had said that government would lead a process that would look at broader issues affecting the funding of higher education. This meant that the President’s instruction was to find the funds. The questions then, were whether this was possible, and whether Treasury had any funds available. The mischief on some university campuses had placed university managements in a difficult position, because they had been given ultimatums by protesting students regarding matters that they had no have control over. How would the protesting students be directed to the correct authorities, so as not to impose ultimatums on their university managements and inflict further damage, beyond the R500 million destruction of property that had already taken place? The best-case scenario of a 0% increase on 2015 would actually mean a decrease in fees in 2017. If this was resorted to, would not the same situation be demanded next year too? It would become a perpetual annual demanded, as an expectation.
 
Ms S Mchunu (ANC) asked which the eight universities were, which had been referred to as being worse off due to the 0% increase in 2016. Was there evidence to justify such a claim?

Mr E Siwela (ANC) commented that two extremes were involved -- the students demanded a 0% fee increase on the 2015 baseline, while the universities councils required an 8% increase to function properly. Had the Higher Education Minister seen the Minister of Finance to mitigate on these two extremes, and the implications involved? The funding policies needed to be reviewed. He agreed that the students would demand a 0% increase annually as an expectation.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) queried if a free education system was used in other first or third world countries, and if so, how were they coping? It was always good to review countries that were 20 years ahead, and extract elements that were good, workable and practical. One should evaluate the good practices of free education and their applicability in the South African context. 

The Chairperson noted that the monetary component had underpinned other principles such as certainty, sustainability and the need to create a futuristic model.

Minister’s response

The Minister responded that:

• It was accepted as Government that the system had grown faster than the resources needed, and so had grown at an undesirable rate. The South African post-school sector was a system that was highly dependant on student fees. Funds derived from the Boards were equivalent to student fees, and so without their proportion of student fees, academic institutions would not be able to function properly. The system had allowed inclusion of the poor, but had not been fully financially capacitated.
• National Treasury needed to review fundamentally the post-school sector and training systems of the country, not only of the universities. This was especially relevant, since the R2 billion which had been meant for addressing historically- disadvantaged universities over a period of five years, had been consumed for the 0% fee increase in 2016. This had resulted in no funds being left for anything -- not even for the development of African languages in universities. Clarity was first necessary, and then an appropriate address to the issues posed could be made. National Treasury was indeed aware of the depth of the problem.
• The 2015 baseline had been R2. 563 billion, and the increase required was 8%.
• The mischief on some campuses may have been sparked by a sensational article in the City Press, which had been mischievous in nature and had made far-fetched claims by faceless people. The President had released a statement clearly endorsing the process that the DHET and Presidential task team were undertaking in response to the City Press article.
• An announcement would be made at an appropriate time regarding a 0% fee increase in 2017, but for now there would be no need to disrupt the academic year.
• Free higher education in other countries had been analysed. Research had shown that some countries, such as Germany, had offered free higher education, but accommodation, food and tuition books were not included – this had been the responsibility of the student, making it in essence not free. In South Africa, accommodation, books, tuition books and tuition fees were perceived as part of free higher education, because what was the point of free tuition fees if the student was left hungry? Cuba had granted free higher education, but there was no capitalist class and little differentiation evident in the country.
• It was agreed that the issues were not only monetary, because there was a high failure in the system, especially among first year students, with one-third of NSFAS beneficiaries failing.

Dr Parker elaborated that without any fee increase, the post-school sector would be in a worse financial position. More institutions would incur deficits. It would compromise the sustainability of academia, because it would not necessarily be a case of no increase, but of deficits upon actual deficits. It was agreed that free education existed in Europe, but it was free tuition only.

The Minister concluded that currently there was no alternative to university fees, but the DHET was engaging with a range of stakeholders including business and industry leaders, labour unions, faith-based leaders, civic organisations, students, other government departments, in particular National Treasury, and was considering the various options available to find short-term solutions to the issue, including sourcing funds from the private sector and government.

The Chairperson concluded that, as yet, no decision had been taken on university fee increases and thus there was no threat of closing institutions of higher learning. All stakeholders in the post-school sector were working collectively towards consensus to improve education for all. The Committee had noted the advice received from the Council of Higher Education, but further consultations were still being undertaken, including with the National Treasury. Solutions arising from these consultations should allay uncertainty, but should not disadvantage the poorest of the poor. 

Recognition of Prior Learning: SAQA briefing
Mr Joe Samuels, Chief Executive Officer, South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), commented on the results of the Operational Concept Document (OCD) team’s research of 2009/2010, which indicated that there were no practices, policy documents, public statements or public interest in the concept evident internationally. The initial phase had entailed countries which demonstrated a modicum of interest in the concept, and examples were Hungary, Greece and the Czech Republic. The embryo practice group were countries that demonstrated lukewarm interest and had a few convincing ventures in very specific areas, such as Austria, Chile and Slovenia. The existence of fragmented practice was evident in Germany, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Iceland and Switzerland. These countries had clear aims of targeting certain individuals or groups in the population, had existence of sporadic funding, and few levels or sectors were open. Countries with a vision and a set of consistent practices included Australia, Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Belgium (in the Flemish community). Evidence was shown of many practices of access for people from different backgrounds, with sporadic funding, and not all levels or sectors were open. Also, the other countries had been involved for much longer than South Africa. Quasi-systems were found in countries with an inclusive policy, an overall system and an overall vision, such as Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

In 2010, comparative research proved that internationally, only South Africa pursued an inclusive policy, a system, a vision and a culture regarding the recognition of non-formal and informal learning outcomes, called the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). The Operational Concept Document (OCD) recognised South Africa as ‘an island of good practice.’ Conferences followed in 2011 and 2014, with key objectives to establish a system that would escalate South Africa to a position that other countries had yet to reach, and determine how that system would be implemented. As a result, in 2014-2015, SAQA had launched and advocated a five-year revised RPL policy, and in 2016-2017 it would deepen the understanding of RPL. In 2017-2018, there would need to be the professional development of practitioners and practices, and in 2019, the national RPL system should be established. These aspirations already ranked South Africa as a world leader in this particular area.
 
SAQA had divided the RPL aspirations into three parts -- research, policy development and co-ordination.

RPL research had developed several publications, and a research partnership with the University of the Western Cape (UWC) had been established. By September/October 2016, Hartford Web Publishing would release a publication of the first work that was underlying and underscoring authorities and practices in South Africa. With policy development, SAQA’s existing RPL policy (2002, 2003) had been based on the SAQA Act, but it had since developed a new and revised policy. The Department on Higher Education and Training (DHET) had also developed an RPL policy on funding and co-ordination. The Quality Council (QC) determined the RPL co-ordination.

Strategic RPL projects ensured activity was took place within the system. The recent policy that had been published had been developed by the Ministerial RPL task team. National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Advisory Services had allowed members of the public advise, and co-ordination had been displayed on the SAQA and NQF websites, as well as on the RPL portal. The Quality Council had provided the co-ordination and framework for SAQA, NQF and RPL separately, and was in the process of implementation.
 
Mr Samuels said that the aspect of redress was one of the drivers for RPL, because the apartheid system had previously denied many people access, but it could not stop them from learning anyhow. A challenge for SAQA was to ensure effective delivery. Another challenge was that of quality assurance, because sometimes RPL had been presented as not the best in avenue in the world, so SAQA had insisted that its system would be safe to ensure that quality improved.

The RPL system had been constructed for prospective students, particularly previously disadvantaged adults, who wanted eligibility for post-school admission to learning, and it would enable them to achieve this. This was a highly specialised system and required specialised staff to execute it. RPL could not work without the necessary funding. No resistance or protests were expected with the introduction and implementation of the RPL system, but to implement it fairly and effectively, adequate financial resources would need to be allocated to it.

The Ministerial Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) RPL task team had co-ordinated the system, and the actual SAQA RPL policy was based on the SAQA Act itself. Changes to the system had been completed by the DHET. An example of the RPL’s achievements was that RPL-accredited athletes from formerly disadvantaged backgrounds could represent and compete for South Africa at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Over 100 Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) higher education institutions existed, and SAQA had set targets for them. There were also different types of RPL, and this variety had created several RPL networks. The composition of organisations that existed as the body of SAQA was not found in other countries. In South Africa, every adult institution wanted its qualifications registered via SAQA, but now it would be necessary for them to implement a manner in which the qualifications could be ascertained by means of RPL.

Umalusi, the Quality Council for Trades Occupations, the Council on Higher Education and the DHET, along with SAQA, comprised the System of Collaboration. The System of Collaboration had served well for quality control purposes, but it was now necessary to implement the RPL system across it. SAQA had successfully accredited 28 696 qualifications through RPL nationwide. The three major sectors of successful RPL qualifications were manufacturing, engineering and technology, with 36% of total qualifications; business, commerce and management studies, with 20%; and physical planning and construction, with 17%.
 
Mr Samuels said that regarding implementation, the focus from 2015 had been on co-ordination, data, directing individuals and organisations, and the requirements as stipulated by the quality councils. The co-ordinating mechanism was outlined in five spheres -- legal, recognition, purpose, scope and phases.

• Legalities were subject to the NQF Act and were key in the White Paper process of post-school education and training.
• Recognition had begun at the RPL 2011 and 2014 conferences, and now had working documentation running. The DHET determined the RPL duration of time, and many successful cases of RPL were evident.
• The purpose was an enabling policy environment, funding and co-ordination.
• The scope was the DHET, SAQA, quality councils, government departments, industry, public bodies, all providers and those who sought access.
• The phases were divided into phase 1(set up) and phase 2 (evaluation and legislation).

The responsibilities of the DHET for the RPL system were to provide a legislative, coordinated funding mechanism, to collaborate and co-operate with SAQA and its quality councils, and then to provide the process of monitoring.

According to the SAQA report released earlier this year, six main points determined its responsibilities. These were:

-  SAQA needed to ensure that its RPL policy was aligned with policies set by the Minister of Higher Education and Training.

-  To provide leadership to the quality councils for its implementation.

-  To advise and support the co-ordinating mechanism set up by the Department.

-   To conduct a sector- wide feasibility study, for the sake of RPL quality assurance.

-  To upload available RPL data to the National Learners` Records Database (NLRD).

-  SAQA was to ensure a Quality Council certification policy was developed and implemented. This included that the achievements acquired via RPL would never to be shown on the certification, because there was still a stigma and misunderstanding attached, and candidates were presumed to be still incompetent. However, from a recording perspective, it was imperative to track the amount of RPL candidates, even though the RPL admission would be omitted on their certification and qualification.

The responsibilities of the quality councils were to provide a sub-framework for the RPL policy, ensure the provider received support for implementation, to certify the learners, advocate RPL so that the public would understand what it was and eliminate stigma, and to issue quarterly reports to SAQA. The responsibilities of the providers were that there should be an institutional RPL policy evident in their admissions policy, institutional RPL forum, actual institutional RPL implementation and reporting of RPL candidates. The institutional providers were also meant to collaborate with the Co-ordinating Mechanism, SAQA and its quality councils.

The biggest challenge that SAQA faced was the issue of funding. No new contributions were coming from the fiscus, and optimal use of existing funds was being made. The primary source of funding was from the state, and for its national implementation, additional funds would have to be sought.
 
Mr Samuels concluded that the priorities of SAQA going forward were to ensure that the RPL policy of SAQA was always aligned and approved by the policies set by the Minister; that RPL success cases were published as proof; that the Quality Council RPL polices and its roll-out plans were finalised; that quality councils progress reports were submitted to the SAQA, and that its RPL data was uploaded on to the NLRD. Aanother priority was that the Co-ordinating Mechanism would be set up.
 
Dr Nkosinathi Sishi, Deputy Director General (DDG): Planning, Policy and Strategy, DHET, said that on an annual basis, the Minister monitored SAQA by issuing guidelines, with the focus on transitioning the vision of the SAQA Act into its reality. It had become apparent over the years that a huge issue of accountability existed for SAQA. The Minister could not on his own account monitor the success of the work of SAQA, but only on the basis of guidelines, and as a result had developed a policy in March 2016.  The Department would like to present this to the Portfolio Committee when warranted, to indicate how the policy intended to deal with co-ordination, especially as SAQA was responsible not only for conventional education, but also for training as well. The establishment of the Quality Council could be considered as a milestone for South Africa’s democracy, as it ensured quality assurance was established for all forms of qualifications, including the spheres of trade and training as well.

The DHET had developed a national strategy for wider scale implementation of RPL in the post-school sector, and it indicated how the articulation and the qualification of the RPL process in the trade and training environment was done. It would advise on personal training and the quality requirements of the national RPL strategy, advise on the legislative requirements for its implementation, as well as advise on its resource implications. The DHET held the view that the challenge of SAQA had been the implementation of all of the policies that had been expected of it. For example, by law each academic institution was meant to develop RPL policies that were coordinated by quality councils, but to have this monitored required resources which many did not have at their disposal. Therefore, the DHET would like to present the national RPL strategy to the Portfolio Committee, and emphasise its need for funding.
 
Discussion
 
Ms Mchunu asked the DHET to compartmentalise the direct and indirect costs of RPL, to avoid financing challenges later on.
 
Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) asked how many artisans had been accredited as a result of the RPL system up to now. Would working individuals with qualifications that were no longer relevant also be considered for admission?
 
Dr Bozzoli queried how artisans would be admitted via RPL. Would a written test or other form of assessment be used for admission? Also, regarding qualifying, if no assessment was used in some instances, what would the alternative be?
 
Mr Kekana sought confirmation as to whether the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) were not already implementing the RPL process, because it had been advocated that they would check prior learning and self-induced training. For example, if an individual was an employee of a factory for many years and that particular factory had closed down or further employment had ceased, SETA would have been able to assist that individual in that particular category of having worked, or was skilled but unqualified or lacked articulation, with the necessary know-how on admission. In fact, during the time of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), prior learning had already been discussed.
 
Mr Mbatha suggested that a link should be made in the system to incorporate those who were already in the working environment without qualifications, to proceed further for the purposes of investment, because many people across various industries lacked articulated degrees, yet were skilled or competent, but due to circumstances beyond their own control they had been prohibited from post-school study. The system had been geared to target specific groups of people at the cost of others, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s. For instance, in Kwazulu Natal, the SAFREF refineries had focused on empowerment for Muslim coloured and Indian individuals, but had neglected black inclusion. The majority required inclusion, and the RPL system should ensure this. A link should be made for those who were in the middle of attaining qualifications for life. Linking the system was vital, so that citizens would become better citizens, by using their life experiences as citizens and accrediting it with formal education. He cautioned that the links for such a group should not be aimed at creating entrepreneurs out of those candidates, but that business ventures should be endeavours on their own accord. If it was intended to create enterpreneurs out of the RPL system, it should involve different training being offered altogether.
 
Mr Kekana commented that the possibility of entrepreneurship could be achieved by personal merit, since people who had natural aptitude for it, but lacked formal accreditation, already existed. This was particularly evident regarding industries of trade. If entrepreneurial training was provided for, it could be at either the basic or intermediary levels.
 
Dr Sishi answered that the Minister had tabled a policy and in it, a clear indication of accountability for the execution of the RPL policy had been made. All stakeholders should be held accountable for their role in the monitoring of its implementation. The DHET was pleased that SAQA had committed to the policy set by the Minister, and structures were in place. There were interdepartmental committees that provided oversight and accountability over governmental departments. There was also a forum for Higher Education and Training, of which the CEO of SAQA was a member, to ensure accountability. They were many role players to provide oversight. The purpose of the guidelines set by the Minister was for quality assurance to be assured and its credibility maintained. The biggest challenge was funding, and it had been noted that the compartmentalisation of funds was needed.
 
Mr Samuels commented that SAQA was performing well, given its time of existence, especially compared to other countries that had attempted this approach long before, and it was a false impression that no progress had been made. It had answered that how admission was acquired was by means of assessment, and that assessment was not necessarily a written test, but could entail a portfolio of evidence or practical assessment of the skill proposed, because admission was based on competence. The exact statistics of artisans incorporated could be forwarded to the Portfolio Committee later. SAQA had collaborated with over 30 projects involving more than 10 000 artisans. There had previously been a huge project that was funded through the European Union for construction workers. However, funding had been an issue, because once resources dried up, progress could not continue. Regarding SETA, it had indeed set up different systems and projects over the years. Regarding the specific training available on offer, RPL would assist individuals with demonstrated entrepreneurial skills in their development, but ultimately entrepreneurship was a sole pursuit.
 
Conclusion
 
The Committee adopted the minutes of 25 May 2016, with amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.